Evidence Flashcards

What is the California Evidence Code's approach to hearsay?

Answer: Hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it falls within a statutory exception

California Evidence Code Section 1200 defines hearsay and declares it inadmissible unless a specific statutory exception applies, such as business records, dying declarations, or excited utterances.

What is the attorney-client privilege under California Evidence Code Section 954?

Answer: A client has the right to refuse disclosure of confidential communications made between the client and attorney

Section 954 provides that a client has the privilege to refuse to disclose and prevent others from disclosing confidential communications between the client and their attorney.

What is the physician-patient privilege in California?

Answer: A patient can prevent their doctor from disclosing information communicated during treatment

California Evidence Code Sections 990-1007 establish the physician-patient privilege, protecting confidential communications made during the course of treatment from disclosure.

How does California treat character evidence?

Answer: Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct on a specific occasion, with exceptions in criminal cases

Under California Evidence Code Section 1101, character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct but may be admitted to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, or identity.

What is the best evidence rule under California Evidence Code?

Answer: The original writing must be produced to prove its content unless an exception applies

California's secondary evidence rule (Evidence Code Sections 1520-1523) generally requires the original document to prove its contents, though copies may be admitted under various exceptions.

What are prior inconsistent statements used for in California courts?

Answer: Both to impeach the witness and as substantive evidence if made under oath at a prior proceeding

Under California Evidence Code Section 1235, prior inconsistent statements are admissible both to impeach credibility and as substantive evidence, regardless of whether they were made under oath.